Hiroshima/Nagasaki. The Last Calf Sacrificed Before Milking: Human Sacrifice Only.

On a superficial level, as the video I will showcase admits ….. It did seem that the mindless human sacrifice of women and children, that the two nuclear bombings represented, did end the war.  The narrative is so clear, and the timing seems so right.  One problem is that people don’t realise that it was human sacrifice that was the main point of the war.  It wasn’t even really a war.  It was Jew human sacrifice PRETENDING to be war.  And with enough time and research you can prove this to your self.

Remember my story about the rabbi murdering calves? And the last calf he murdered happened just before the cows got milked?  But what if you found out he had murdered 67 calves prior to the calf that just got murdered before the milking was started?  Would it THEN be so obvious that the last calf murder is what made the milking of the cows possible?  See the rabbi has a good story if you forget about the 67 other calf murders and only rely on that one that happened just prior to the milking.

This is actually a very good analogy, as opposed to most of the last thread where it was only a good analogy at a single point of it.  You see if you negotiate properly, from a position of strength and with good intentions, suddenly you find out that you can do a deal.  The cows want to release pressure from their tits, which are growing progressively more uncomfortable.  The farmer wants their milk.

At this point we can clear up the mystery of mad cow disease.  I think you girls will know what I am talking about.  Supposing a man washed your tits then sucked them twice a day,  but only gave you a fuck once a year?  Don’t you think you would be a mad cow as well?

Before the bombs were dropped we wanted our prisoners back.   We wanted the Japanese, for the most part, back within their territory.  The Japanese wanted lots of oil and lots of food, an honourable resolution, and their women not to be raped by Stalins hordes.

The colonial British had food. (The English themselves were desperately hungry.) The Americans had food and oil and the capacity to transport both to the Japanese.  The Japanese wanted safe transport of over a million of their soldiers home, should they agree to stop fighting.  Supposing  you stop fucking killing their girls and do a deal? Might not a deal get done? If you could not cut a deal under that situation you aren’t going to be able to organise a whore-house for long-haul truck drivers.

The white Devil was allied to the Japanese.  Suddenly we end the alliance for no sane reason, we start demonising and persecuting them, and then when they retaliate a little bit, instead of retaliating back in some slightly scaled up way, we start acting like we are going to destroy every last one of them??? Surely after all this time we can admit that the white devils behaviour was insane??

So supposing you suddenly want to give them many things they want, not dishonour them, and stop killing their kids …… Don’t you imagine you can get some things you want in return? You would have to be a pretty useless negotiating team if you could not get EVERYTHING YOU REALLY NEED under these idyllic negotiating circumstances.

I think that the knowledge that the Americans had nuclear weapons DID play a part in helping win the war.  But in context we will show that the murder of all those women and children, with the use of these weapons, had absolutely no part to play in ending the war, and that its actually quite irrational to suggest so.

We must try to be like Aquinas and make these fine distinctions …. The CAPACITY to use nuclear weapons in war ……… HELPFUL.   The use of nuclear weapons in the two acts of human sacrifice …. completely irrelevant.  As irrelevant as our rabbi beating that last Frisian calf to death, after sacrificing 67 others quite similar to her.

At this point we will digress for the purpose of describing a general model as to how you win a war.  What winning means.  How you know when you have won and so forth.  To win a war or to even know whether you should be fighting you need to know what peace looks like.  What is an acceptable peace for your citizens.  This can be hard to explain in the context of World War II since both Germany and Japan had always wanted to be friends with us!!!!! They didn’t want to hurt anyone in any of the allied countries.  They had no claims on the United States, or the countries of the British Empire, so its obvious that the war was the doing of our elites.   But if you allow the known details of the second world war to invade your mind while I am explaining how to win A REAL WAR then you will never ‘get it’…  Because the war against Germany and Japan amounted to mindless violence on our part.

So lets forget World War II for the moment and try and understand what honest war is all about.  Supposing its about



Just War Theory Versus Jew Ritual Murder Posing As War.

I am going to tell a story which is supposed to be analogous to World War II.  But its not a good analogy at all.  And its not a good analogy to the bad decisions made during World War II.  But just at one point there is a good analogy to an argument that is often made about the Nagasaki bomb.

Jews and oligarchs always employ DISTRACTION MURDERS for their plots. They were faking us out with Hiroshima.  The more important target was Nagasaki which is why Jew media tends to forget to mention this city.   Nagasaki was a Christian city.  And the Jews saw to it that the bomb was dropped as directly on the main church as they could manage it. 

There is this rabbi that lives in the bushes next to our place.  He lives just below the sewerage line of the outdoor toilet because Jews are parasites and parasites are attracted to excretions.  Why do we tolerate him?  Well our family like many others is subject to social conditioning.  We want to tell him that we don’t want him around but as far as we know, no Jew ever does anything wrong and we see him as a victim.  But we have to have a semi-plausible excuse to keep him around.  So we tell ourselves and everyone who will listen, that he is keeping the population of possums down.

A rabbi lives in the bushes next to our house. Even the kids earnestly praise him to the hilt, though he disgusts each one of them.  They individually assume that they are the only one in possession of an errant heart. 

Why do we think he’s keeping the possum population down? Well you see he takes baby possums, sucks and bites their foreskins off, and spreads herpes.  He has mouth herpes and spreads it to the babies like all the other rabbis do.  Personally I think that giving venereal disease to animals as a control mechanism as being unethical.  Particularly in the case of Carp its cruel and unusual punishment as they have no hands.

He takes the smaller male adult possums and bites their thyroid gland out of their neck; that being his only nutrition.  So we keep falling over ourselves, passing complements on how well he is keeping the possum population down.  In fact the possums are getting more numerous and much much bigger because he leaves the big ones alone.  Our pseudo-earnestness  makes us red in the face as we enthusiastically praise him on his possum control because its such a social fucking faux pas not to heap great praise on your local Jew.

Under the rabbis stewardship the possums are getting larger and more numerous.  We fear they will soon take over the house.  Yet we praise the rabbi for his vigilante possum control.  Its socially awkward to do otherwise.  One of the larger possums wears a small black cap and another is attending a local Jewish seminary. 

It would be a mistake to say that because of our praise of the rabbi his confidence has grown.  And now he wants to help us get the cows milked.  No thats not it.  He was always confident, and always had grandiose plans.  Its more that he can smell weakness and indecision and so he decided to branch out into “driving” the cows to the milking shed.

The Maori without loan money or earth-moving equipment had terraced rolling hillsides in a way that we could not seem to manage.  This is market failure.  This is a symptom of how fucked our financial system is. 

We separate the cows from their calves early on.  Then teach the calves to drink milk from a bucket. Why separate the little calf from his mother?  This is fighting nature and is cruel punishment for any mammal.  We do this because we have to drive the cows from all over the farm, twice a day, to a fixed milking shed.  Why not a mobile milking setup?  Because the farm isn’t terraced.  Which is a failing commentary on our state-supported usury form of capitalism.  Money is lent at low interest to buy a farm.  Then the farmer is crippled in his capacity to improve the farm.  But money is not lent at low interest to improve the farm.  (Here in a nutshell is the problem of post-War farming. This is the reason that farmers are always ‘crying poor’ and usually seem to need some form of assistance or other.  It was never their fault.  It was a banking and money debacle).

So that even though the white man has been there with good tools, and in numbers, for more than 200 years, the farms still by and large aren’t terraced.   Yet from my place, particularly if I “ran away from home” for a couple of hours before getting hungry, I could see at least two flattened hill-tops.  Flattened by pre-European maoris for the military imperative of capturing the high ground.  Not even metal tools to do the job.  How useless is our system of finance?

Dairy is just one part of a full-blown terraced permaculture system.  Proper farming doesn’t tolerate a monoculture, even in herbivores. The cows, were they without milk, would still be fantastically valuable for their manure and urine.  But the ideal herd isn’t even a herd.  Its a flock and a herd (A “Flerd”) combined with many species moved together and at least one other moving with a time delay after the main bunch. Milk as just one product of the farm ought to be taken by mobile milking units. 

Mobile milking and 200+ tiny micro-paddocks would have been far superior if the farm were terraced.  Since it would spread the cow manure and urine around the farm and not into the low altitude creek where the milking shed is.  So the farm would have been lush at all times.  Even in a drought the terraced nature of the farm would have meant that water was soaked into the ground, with much more than a years worth of water.  In real life we didn’t have any of this so the little calves were cruelly separated from their mothers early on.

Neglecting to terrace hillside agricultural land is brazen market failure.  Vivid proof that the neoclassical approach to capitalism does not produce an idyllic well-balanced Misesean economy.  Terracing land is not just a rice thing.  It ought to be ubiquitous regardless of the type of farming involved. 

Anyway in my story, as opposed to real life, we drive the cows and the calves together to the static milking shed.  An unrealistic scenario and there is some resistance to being driven as the mothers naturally want to wait for their slower walking young calves.  The kids are making noises and they carry sticks to drive the cows along. Someone is out ahead of the cows yelling “Come on …. Come on …. Come on ….” and there never used to be too much of a problem getting them to the milking shed,  until one day the rabbi jumps out from behind a tree and surprises everyone by smashing a lagging calf to death right there on the road.

Our rabbi.  This time in formal dress and still full of surprises.

From that day on the cows are of course more leery at leaving the paddock in the first place.  But here is this rabbi sacrificing calves all the way to the cow shed, claiming credit for getting the job done. And to be fair there is often just the faintest scintilla of truth to what he is saying.

Now particularly one day there is this frisian calf that he smashes to death just before the cows are in the shed ready to be milked.  Because one incident precedes the other he reckons that his sacrifice of “the enemy” (the little calf) is what caused the completion of the job.

“The Enemy”  According to our rabbi. 

How different is this “last calf” argument from the idea that the Jew ritual sacrifice of civilians in the Christian city of Nagasaki ended the war?  Its no different.  What a stupid argument.  Maybe there is a latin name for this formal fallacy, but what it amounts to is cherry-picking the starting point IN TIME as to when you allow the analysis.  But the choice wasn’t to bomb Nagasaki or not.  The choice was whether to practice the spirit and the letter of just war theory, from well before the war started …………..  or not.  If we had done that we would not have provoked a war with Japan in the first place. This is like the rabbi provoking a conflict with the mother of the calf by way of smashing the calves skull into the road.   The enemy of the American people was not the Japanese civilians.  The enemy of the American people was the oligarchical demi-Jew Roosevelt,  who worked very hard to provoke a Japanese attack.  This failure to follow good proper war ethics means the dumb bastards at Catallaxy, after 80 years or so, still don’t know who the enemy was.

“The Enemy” of the American people, according to the Jews at Catallaxy.  Deviations from Catholic just war theory inevitably leads to manipulation, idiocy, and the failure to prioritise the use of firepower.

So the reality was that all the costs in blood and money of fighting Japan was entirely unnecessary.  The elite Jew pigs and oligarchical families had their Soviet Union as a colony.  So they didn’t want the Japanese attacking north to get oil.  They knew the Japanese needed oil since the Americans went out of their way to starve the Japanese of oil.  So the elite Jew pigs and oligarchs were determined to get the Japanese to attack south instead.  If the US wasn’t run by traitors, they should have emphasised friendship with the Japanese people.  They ought to have opened up the oil sluices again, and tried to encourage our good good Japanese friends to treat the Chinese people, in the territories they occupied, an whole lot better.  The Americans certainly had the influence to get results in that area of kindness towards occupied peoples.

When these boys were young their country was allied with the British.  They were the natural allies of the Americans and it took a lot of work to make things otherwise.  They could fight on the smell of an oily rag and they ought to have been our best friends. To put us on a poor footing with sons of samurai was about the stupidest thing the white man could ever do.  But like I said … It took a great deal of work to make enemies out of them.

  It wasn’t the Japanese who made themselves our enemies. This was, for the ost part, an American undertaking. Jews, oligarchs and closet supporters of the Soviet Union did this to us.  The Americans easily had the negotiating power to get the colleagues of these boys to behave more humanely on Chinese territory.  The decision to occupy parts of China was made only because the alliance with Britain was ended on the insistence of the US.  Of course we could never approve of poor treatment of the Chinese people.  Treating occupied peoples with excess brutality can never be acceptable. But a handful of Japanese military bases on the mainland (near the Soviet border) was to our interest. 

From a patriotic point of view we really wanted to have the Japanese have some bases in mainland China to keep Jewish communism out.  We could have had them set up fortifications with a view to opposing the Soviets.  In fact the Japanese only occupied the mainland because the Americans persuaded the British to end their alliance with the Japanese.  So the whole thing was orchestrated within the US, perhaps even by the usual suspects.

The Duke Of Wellington.  The British opposition to Bonaparte may have been excessive.  An argument could be made that the British were the bad guys.  Its easy to make the case either way. But the WAY they fought Bonaparte was exemplary for the time.  In that they almost always sent most of their own boys home to Mama.  

If we went back to the early 19th century we could misuse this fallacy (cherry-picking the analytical start-point in time) to say that only pitched battles win wars.  We could then say that Wellington and before him Nelson were completely wasting their time with all that proxy and naval war against Napolean.  The theory would then go that we should have sent all these Brits in to clobber the French on the ground.  But to me the Nelson-Wellington campaigns were the absolute text-book example of ‘doing it right’ for a change.  The pitched battle only came when it served to end the conflict in its entirety.  Bloody good show I reckon.

Reagan if anything was even better with his Wellingtonian strategy of wearing down the Soviet Union without putting his boys in the field.  This shows the power of a strategy based around almost always trying to send your boys home to Mama.  Always train most of the lads to be shock troops.  But don’t use them in this fashion unless its absolutely necessary.

Formidable cold war leader who put together a strategy that killed almost no American soldier and few civilians of enemy governments (directly), but destroyed the Soviet Union.  Reagan hated both communism and nuclear weapons in a visceral way that is hard for most people to understand. The dispute over whether he took out the Soviet Union really comes about from the idea that warfare requires huge amounts of killing. 

 In retrospect if he had understood that the Jews and the oligarchs were the problem (and not the communists per se) he may have done things differently.  But given that his goal was to end the conflict between the Americans and the Soviets, his approach to the war was outstanding.  Most of his soldiers who did die were murdered by Israel in false flag attacks. 

Were you dropped into a decision-making role in the middle of World War II you should still focus on fighting ethically.  This focuses the mind and makes one stop wasting resources.  Germany didn’t have domestic oil and so relied on the Fischer–Tropsch process for converting coal into oil.  So beating the Germans in North Africa, and carpet bombing any Fisher Tropsch plants,  was all it would have taken,  to bring favourable negotiations from the German leadership.  Of course civilians would die when you were carpet bombing Fischer-Tropsch plants.  I offer this as consolation to the Jews and Hannibal Lechter types.

In any case it was really that easy.  No incendiary bombings aimed directly at cities was necessary or acceptable.  There were other super weak points to the German act that could have been exploited, and would have been exploited, if this Jew ritual sacrifice of holocaustic incendiary bombing were out of the way and out of the question.  This was the real “burnt offering” by the Jews OF GENTILES.  The other imaginary holocaust started out as straight Jew reversal.

British action against Bonaparte was necessary but it may have been and probably was excessive.  Yet with regards to World War One, this strategy showed that the British already had in their history,  the right formula to deal with a kick-ass continental power.  The British should have always stayed the good good friends of the Germans.  There was never any reason to not stay friends.  They ought to have outcompeted the Germans by bludgeoning their local bankers to only lend for wealth creation.  

But supposing they felt it necessary to weaken the Germans through warfare? They ought to have taken a leaf out of Nelsons book.  Patience, naval and proxy war ought to have been the priority.  Nelson took some tongs and placed them diagonally on the table.  He said it doesn’t matter how I place these tongs.  But if Bonaparte places them THIS WAY then I will place them THIS (ie on the other diagonal) WAY ….  This attitude was that of a warrior.  Not an attitude that had anything to do with Jew ritual murder. 

Good ethics helps you win the war because it helps prioritise where to put your resources.  Good ethics also helps you choose better ways to solve the underlying problems that seem to call for war as the solution to these problems.

Lets take the problem behind the motives of the British in World War I?

What were the underlying problems that made the British elite seek to fight Germany to a standstill? Rather than negotiate a fair peace after only a few months? It comes down to the excellent German worker and the nationalistic German banker.  Unlike bankers everywhere else, German bankers were lending for the purpose of wealth creation.  This was closer to idyllic Misean capitalism.  Rather than our own poxy state supported usury.  It was a matter of degree not an absolutist thing.  I have to find out much more about this.  I have to buy a bunch of books from E Michael Jones’ network and then eventually go back and look for late nineteenth century German economics translations.  Probably I won’t get it all done for awhile.  But this is the indication.  So Germany was outstripping the British in production.

Get strong but be friends with everyone. The twentieth centuries greatest statesman.  Kept his city state sovereign by skilfully staying friends with all the major parties.  Ethnically Chinese he maintained order and good relations in a multi-racial city and allowed for massive wealth creation on his territory.  Always treated communists humanely but often put them under house arrest.  Made absolutely no bones about putting potential subversives into humane detention.  Silenced other subversives by keeping a right to reply in the papers and by bankrupting bullshit artists with legal action.  Ran an honest non-corrupt government yet paid the best people massive salaries to be public servants.  Had to hang drug-dealers rather than bigshots since the international narcotics trade was at the time run by the English and the Chinese as a virtual duopoly.  He said “If we could we would kill them 100 times.”  Developed an armed forces that could repel a sneak attack but realised that he had to be diplomatic with all parties.  His then Malaysian counterpart Mahatir,  is currently beginning to match him for awesomeness.

Britain was also the greatest creditor nation.  And this had an effect that it tended to overprice their exports.  As a creditor nation they had great scope for wealth creation to outstrip these problems.  But there is a turd in the punchbowl here for the elite.  Wealth production is great for society.  But it isn’t necessarily so good for dynastic banking incumbents.  With great productive success prices tend to fall down towards marginal costs.  Loans get hard to pay off.  Fractional reserve banking requires SECURE profits to pyramid on. Under state supported usury, bankers only lend at reasonable interest on SURE THINGS, and even then only sometimes.

Wealth creating non-usurious non-fractional reserve banking, would amount to a conspiracy to annihilate profits.  Loans will get paid off more or less if the interest rate is low.  Try to do the same thing on a ponzi fractional reserve basis and the dynastic banking families might stand to lose everything.

“The Enemy” according to the Jew President Johnson. Jews always have a problem with other peoples children.  So President Johnson took anti-Just War to the ultimate extreme by BOMBING THE CHILDREN OF HIS ALLIES.  None of these genocidal bombing runs ever hurt a Viet Kong soldier since the bombing campaigns were announced in advance.  So the Kong could exit the relevant villages they were dwelling in,  leaving the enemies of the Jew Johnson (see the girl above) to be blown apart.   A general fidelity to Catholic Just War Theory would have prevented this troglodyte from  genocidal behaviour which distracted from both peace and the war effort. 

A strict fidelity to ethics in war …. if not full-blown Catholic Just War theory would have indirectly forced wealth creating banking on the British to keep their edge over the Germans.  They might have practiced usury outside of the empire.  But within they would have had to force changes on the bankers.  And thats where they come up against the Rothschild and extended banking network.  But there was no conflict in the elites at that time I think really.  Before the second World War there was division.  But I think the elite basically had decided that once they were in the (first world) war they were going to fight Germany to a standstill and this was fine for them, but not for the rest of the population.

LBJ.  Totally Evil Jew trogolodyte who lost a war against a third world country because he followed the Catallaxian Jews advice and focused bombing campaigns on civilians.  As a human being easily as evil as the Jew Stalin.  Perhaps the least competent war leader in modern history.  Lost a war that almost could not have been lost.  Simply by focusing on human sacrifice rather than just war. 

I see the major war guilt as being with the British.  Many elite families had been infiltrated by the Jewish money-lending class.  Whether its true or false that the elite manipulated the war into being, once it was started it was the British elite that were determined to fight to the bitter end,  rather than fight for an acceptable negotiating position.

Just war theory personified

The adult warrior fights to look after the child. A vision of manhood no Catallaxian human sacrifice advocate could possibly share in.

Consider the implausibility of normal geopolitics as a cause of a war between Germany and Britain.  The British believed themselves to be genetically Germanic.  Angles, Saxons and Jutes.  All Germanic tribes.  They were each-others biggest trading partners.  Plus both royal families were held to be German.   I have my doubts about that.  I suspect that the British royal family were already polluted by Jew genes and Jew loyalties. One country had the greatest navy, the other the most powerful army.  Peace was assured one would think.  The conflict comes when the interests and identity of the elite, particularly a Jewish elite, differ from the interests and identity of a non-Jewish people.

In the Gospel of Saint John, the saviour becomes the personification of the Greek Logos. Catholic Just War theory is an extension of the Greek idea of logos, taken to the problem of international relations. The saviour had no sense of humour towards people who would hurt Christian children. For this reason I would say that the oligarchical families who perpetrated or didn’t stop the incendiary bombing of Germany and Nagasaki need to have their wealth confiscated. And this wealth could then be used as zero interest loans to promote sole trader business.

Now in light of all the above we may link to a few of the insane ideas that Catallaxy had on the fly the last time they started pretending that small and gorgeous asian girls were the enemy.  Just like the rabbi in our story starts calling the calves the enemy and smashing them into the road.

Catholic Just War Theory teaches us how to avoid war,  when to go to war, how to conduct ourselves at war, and also how to win. Here is the thread where these Jews make fools of themselves demanding that we divert resources from winning the war to practice ritual Jew human sacrifice. Which is what World War II was all about. It was just gargantuan culling pretending to be war.

The Jews on Catallaxy (and elsewhere) see other peoples children as “the enemy” in war. Resources are to be taken away from killing regime leadership and destroying military targets to waste on hurting these kids. This is not a valid intellectual point of view. They are the bad guys and someone else is the good guys.

Here is the thread where these idiots run wild. Its not just Dr Beau Gan. Its basically all the Jews on Catallaxy. And its not just one night either. Being in favour of diverting resources from war to terrorism is a longstanding article of faith held with blind ferocity and total consistency for the last 13 years. I didn’t realise that it was a Jew thing for a very long time:



What would Jesus think of the Jew idea of targeting women and children during a war?

“King James Bible
But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.”

I don’t think he would approve even a little bit.


It took a lot of work to make the Japanese our enemy.  A lot of effort.  It is disrespectful to the Jews, communists and oligarchs involved, to play down the years and years of effort that it took to make the Japanese the enemy.  The idea of avenging ourselves against the Japanese for Pearl Harbour is simply nonsensical, given authentic history. 

The universal adoption of Catholic just war theory is absolutely vital to the survival of the species. Since realistic cosmology tells us that a planet only has so much time where it can harbour intelligent life. Catholic just war theory comes directly out of Christianity. So if Jesus Christ did exist he is the saviour of all of us and not just believers in his divinity.



Just War Applications: Australias Only Prophet On World War One (From Youtube).

You would think the answer was obvious. The world wars were absolute disasters. A lot less money spent on revamping the navy could have kept the islands secure without losing blood. Good lord. Just got to the final vote. These British are horribly brainwashed. Give them any excuse for their past disasters and they’ll go with it.
Paul Marks7 hours agoHighlighted reply
No Sir. If Imperial Germany had been allowed to control all of Europe (including the industrial areas of Russia) they would have built op a navy that would have crushed this island – it would not have been 1940, it would have been much worse than that. I AGREE with you that world wars are disasters – but I suggest that you put your complaint to Germany, which started both of them. For it was Germany that turned a Balkan War into a European and then World War in 1914 – Czar Nicholas and the French government certainly did not want war (the French military modernisation would not have been completed till 1916 – and the Russian one not till 1918, neither France or Russia was prepared for war in 1914). What was the German war aim in 1914? What areas were there inhabited by Germans that they did not already control? Indeed they already controlled large areas that did NOT want to be part of Germany – but they were not satisfied and wanted more. German “Geopolitics” (all the rage in the German universities in 1914) was not even satisfied with controlling Europe – it wanted much more than that.
What complete utter bullshit. Imperial Germany was less unethical than we were. So there aggrandisement was neither here nor there and may have been a positive thing. But any expansion on their part would mean that they were still surrounded by hostiles on all sides. Hence if they expanded beyond any realistically defensible realm they would have continually had their hands full.
This is why the latter career of Bismark was peaceful. He figured he had expanded enough to ensure the survival of Germany. When the three large powers came together and got all chummy then matters changed and Germany could thereafter do with a little more territory in order to be able to deal with the more nasty situation.
So opposing them they had the greatest Empire in the world with the best navy. At one flank they had the second best land army with France. Up above they had the biggest army in the world with Russia. If the three of these people get all cosy against Germany of course the Germans are going to want out of that situation. The active engagement of the Germans in the war, would have depleted them somewhat. So with Britain (then the greatest creditor nation on earth) instead of getting their hands bloody chose to run an arms buildup in response to the continental war …. Under that tactic the British could easily have protected herself, as the continental powers burned up all their men and energy.
Certainly I would not have been opposed to the British engaging in proxy war and the protection of other powers ports as a way of burning up the war energy of Germany. I wasn’t going that far. But the idea is to always try and send your boys home to Mama. Now consider your hypothetical? Is that as bad as what actually happened? The massive spread of Jew influence, the rise of the communist Soviet Union? Tens of millions of people murdered, that plague of communism spread to the most populous nation in the world, the second world war and on and on? Your alleged nightmare world sounds positively dreamy by comparison. We are talking about the worst policy decisions in human history. Your scenario, bad as it may well have been, is bliss in comparison to actual history.
This argument involves a bit of an ambit claim.  In reality I would not have opposed the idea of British soldiers being on the continent.  But if you have Germans on your soil its the responsibility of your boys to face them.  The Brits may train their guys as shock troops.  But to fulfil their commitments in this situation they would then have their shock troops usually doing logistical support rather than being at the sharp end of the spear.  Perhaps there needed to be an exception right at the start to really slow down the German onslaught through Belgium and into France.
A good culturally Christian leader has to send his boys home intact in almost every situation.  This is good strategically since it leaves your men whole.  If your men aren’t locked into the field you can negotiate better, since you still have resources in reserve.  The Germans made all these huge ambit claims that are now used as a justification for fighting them to a standstill.  Taking a more ethical approach to warfare could have left the Brits in a position to negotiate a lot of these demands away, still leaving a slightly aggrandised Germany, which probably would have been a good thing because lets face it Germans were pretty damn awesome.

Contrary to the Austrians: The Interest Rate Can Never Be Too Low.

Technically speaking I am not running contrary to Austrian school analysis here.  But there is a lot of loose talk about interest rates being too low when the Austrian school talks about the causes of depressions/recessions.  With some Austrian school types it comes down to a matter of wording.  But others are confused. Some matters have been played down thanks to the Jew-Usury thing.  Some things have been played down due too the oligarchy fucking with the careers of genius Austrian-school theorists, then turning around and putting them on sponsorship.  This may not have buggered their economic thinking.  But I believe it has influenced how Mises and Hayek have phrased things.

I suppose you might think I’m trying to reconcile excellent Misean analysis with anti-Jew anti-usury prejudices.  But I have noticed this troubling phraseology,  that is not a technical mistake in the hands of the really intelligent older Austrians.  But the thing is the younger fellows get all strident and confused and won’t be gainsayed when you try to explain matters to them.

I read a lot of pretend Miseans laying forth on why we have recessions and I’ve known they were talking bullshit but at the time I’m at a loss to come up with a concise riposte to show where indeed the bullshit lies.  The key point to understand is that the Misean analysis, excellent though it was,  came well before Malcolm Maclean and the widespread use of container shipping.

Check out these bullet points about Macleans innovation and see how much has changed since Ludwig put together his excellent explanation for depressions.  This is important because we simply don’t have pure Misean depressions any more.  They cannot really happen the way he explained them.  Or at least they play out quite differently.  I think the last Misean depression that I saw may have been in Thailand in 1997.   Investments stopped in the middle and this was still evident to me when I visited in 2005.  But this is not so much how things play out nowadays.  Think about how things have changed since Mises formulated his explanation:

  • The cost to ship cargo has dropped more than 90%.
  • In 1956 cargo cost $5.86 per ton to load whereas now it only cost around $0.16 per ton.
  • In 1966 around 1% of countries had container ports, this rose to 90% by 1983.
  • Malcom McLean has been awarded ‘Man Of The Century’ by the International Maritime Hall of Fame.
  • Pre-containers, cargo could be loaded at around 1.3 tonnes per hour. This increased to over 30 tonnes per hour by 1970.
  • In 2011 the shipping ports of America received $1.73 trillion worth of goods.
  • Around 90% of every purchased item has been shipped inside a container.
  • There are more than 17 million shipping containers in the world, which make over 200 million trips per year.
  • A sweater can now travel 3,000 miles for 2.5 cents by sea.
  • There are more than 6,000 container vessels currently in service.
  • The largest shipping in the world, MSC Oscar, has a TEU of 19224: source.

The other thing that has changed since Mises figured out how things go wrong, is that with floating currencies, screwups in monetary policy, are often more isolated.   Now this is not COMPLETELY the case in practice.  Because we are lorded over by a financial cartel that will often fuck things up generally for clandestine reasons.  But in theory at least, the floating currency regime undermines the idea of a depression coming about in the Misean way.

To digress why did the oligarchy marginalise AND THEN SPONSOR Mises and Hayek? The answer is that they don’t want you to understand economics.  But they need these geniuses publishing SO THAT THEY UNDERSTAND ECONOMICS.  If Thorstein Veblen were alive today they would have taken the same approach to him.   These are people that have picked outright the winners Sam Walton, Bill Gates, maybe they picked authentic genius Steve Jobs … (the only deserving one amongst them)  Jeff Bezos, and the absolute runt of the family …  a fellow with the cushiest job in the world …  Mark Zuckerberg.

That part of the explanation that seems unique to Mises is where all manner of projects are abandoned in the middle because the materials aren’t available.  Too many people start making investments to do with physical construction.  They do this because more loans are available without the savings to match them.  People are trying to consume more and invest more at the same time.  This is because more loans have gone out, and these loans have been ponzied up out of nothing.  But common parlance in Austrian terms is that the interest rates are too low.   Well if they want to get specific about it and make it clear, that the central bank has given the commercial banks an interest rate subsidy, and the COMMERCIAL BANKS therefore have been able to conjure loans at very low interest cost to themselves, then they would be right.

But consider when the depression hits? All these people have half-finished projects and all this debt? At that point are we really saying that its better if their debt is at a higher interest rate then a lower one? No of course not.  Interest is always a menace.  If some amount of it is necessary, if this be the case then its a necessary evil.  This phraseology is pernicious because it allows people to think its a good thing that banks ought to be able to reach into everyones pockets and grab so much of their income on their variable rate mortgages.  The entire status quo is a scandal.

No the problem is not and has never been too low an interest rate to the end user.  The interest rate subsidy to the banks is a problem since there is no free lunch and the new loans are therefore stolen from the public and re-lent.  We need to change the terminology so that its very clear that the problem is a sudden creation of new money and a sudden simultaneous creation of new debt.  THAT is the problem and not low interest rates and its really important that we get the wording right.

The Easiest Way To Speed Up The Rate Of Technological Improvement.

When I finally tell you what it is, don’t be thinking that this measure is what I am advocating.  This heading is for didactic purposes only.  I was trying to write a post to explain what I know about economics and manufacturing and the post wasn’t working.  So I decided I had to break all the concepts down into many posts and push a lot of pictures and editorialising into each post.  Because you have to understand a lot of the things that I understand to reach similar conclusions.

My Palletizer Is A Demi-Robot. 

What are the main differences between a robot and a more conventional robot-free production line? The main thing is that the conventional production line has many devices that do 1-3 tasks (mainly one) and a robot is a device that does multiple things IN THE SAME SPOT.

Just consider for a moment how disruptive to the flow of materials is a device that does many things in the one spot? Think about that for a little while? And then given that its inevitable (Since manufacturing done right is really logistics in disguise) that you have a flow of materials ….. How much of an advantage is the robot really? And where does my palletizer end and your robot begin?

This may seem really obvious stuff but still its important to try and communicate certain seemingly obvious realities about manufacturing to intellectuals and economists.

So lets think about a typical conveyor with several tasks to be done.  The bag is filled with gunk, Its dumped, moved,  there is a bag-spreader, then a sewing machine … then the bag is weighed, dumped if its the wrong weight, the ones that are the right weight are tested for metal, and then the bags go to a palletizer at the end of the conveyor to be stacked.

Lets highlight that for a second.  My palletizer is a demi-robot and it comes at the end of the conveyor.  A robot doing its own thing in the middle of the flow of materials presents a problem to the flow of materials.  Its not an insurmountable problem but its worth considering to economists who are stuck on some sort of Kurzweilian fantasy.

Whether we are talking about the big bang, conventional manufacturing, 3-D printing, or robotics ……………….    the production of anything complex requires tasks in series and tasks in parallel.  Which means the production of anything complex TAKES TIME. 

Okay lets bring a robot into the process earlier than my palletizer (I don’t own a palletizer.  This is a royal “my” going on for didactic purposes).  So now the gunk is dumped in a bag, rolls along the conveyor to a robot.  As the robot picks up the bag he weighs it, spreads the bag and sews it (maybe he has got six arms) but before that is done the bag has been checked for metal, and he places the bag on a very short conveyor heading towards my palletizer.

We have saved a helluva lot of space.  But are we now more productive? Maybe yes maybe no.  Probably “NO” if we have some sort of racial prejudice in favour of robots versus more ordinary machines.  So how must we arbitrate in favour of when to apply a robot or not? Or more generally what tells us which machines to buy first? Whether that be a robot or not?

The answer is shockingly simple. You don’t consider a robot as anything different from any other machine.  You see to it 1. that your country is training plenty of tradesmen so that maintenance is always working in advance 2.  Your country expects and gets workers that take their job seriously, are paid well and are on a mission to get quality production out the door. 3. That your country has excellent money, banking and taxation policies and then 4. You speed the machines up and figure out where problems are occurring. 

Now the thing is most people would say I’m being facetious about the first 3.  And then they would turn around and say “Look if identifying what to do next is simply about speeding up the machines why doesn’t everybody do that?”

Why don’t we speed up the machines? Let look at numbers 1-3.

Our country has stopped training tradesmen for the most part.  So maintenance staff are usually old guys or foreign-born.  There is not enough of them and they cost too much.  As a consequence maintenance is done after the fact.  And in automated factories there will be a lot of jobs, where sometimes it all looks easy.  Looks to an outsider like the workers can be complete dopes and you will be wondering why we haven’t outsourced a few of the jobs to the Sudan.  This is a sign that we could speed the machines up.  But come in another time,  work-in progress in a state needing remedial action is piling up all around and the machines are out of action much of the time.  The reason the machines cannot be sped up is that much of the time they are in a poor state of maintenance.  So its either pretty easy going for the operator or its extremely hard because so many things are going wrong.  The more high-tech your factory is, the greater the need for highly skilled maintenance staff.  And the more you need operators who take their job seriously and are focused trouble-shooters.

So supposing we have 1 and 2 sorted then? What would be the next step? We speed up the conveyor and the machines that are doing the production on and before the conveyor.  And we diagnose which part of the process is then leading to problems and bottlenecks.  If easier solutions didn’t present themselves the idea would be to buy a new machine at that part of the process where there was now a bottleneck.  It might come to it where the solution was to get some updated capital equipment.

So why don’t we go through these steps?  Why haven’t we updated, using this procedure, all the way up to ubiquitous robotics? After all each time you have to buy new gear invariably its better quality then what preceded it.  I’ve seen a progression of chargers for the forklifts and they get smaller and better all the time.  So we ought to be all fabulously rich and productive.

Well to reiterate we haven’t got that oversupply of maintenance staff.  The machines aren’t fabulously maintained in advance of problems.  So if you speed up everything you are just going to create a disaster.  Buying better gear under this situation would be a redundancy because you are not going to sustain the extra rate of production anyhow.

But even if we were a country that had all these electrically and mechanically gifted and trained people,  think of the financial considerations behind the idea of updating the machinery?  We are in a capitalist nation.  That is to say a nation of state supported usury.  And a nation that hasn’t figured out that profits for reporting to the shareholders aren’t necessarily the same thing as that which might rightly be taxed if we want to have wealth creation going on.

So every company is already in debt.  Buying other companies, buying back their own shares, buying land, buying factories off other companies, and they may even borrow to pay dividends.  Now this company could pay down those debts with revenues instead of buying new equipment.  That means that every piece of new equipment effectively carries an interest charge for an open-ended period. Even though that new equipment will get old and depreciate and then get thrown out.  We are expected to buy everything with an interest charge to it, that effectively goes on forever though the machinery itself is mortal.  So why would all the revenue go on creating greater productive power?  Why not buy another factory somewhere, so as to get the value growth from the real estate under it?

Free enterprise economic models say we get rich from profit, being productive, creating wealth.  But thats complete bullshit.  We get rich from the fractional reserve subsidy.  And companies produce some level of profits and create some level of wealth so they can go rent-seeking after the fractional reserve subsidy.

I’ve worked casual all over the place and its very hard for me to think of an occasion where the management sized up the situation and thought “how can we produce more per person” and carried out that strategy via the update of capital goods.   I’ve seen them invest for safety reasons (with a gun against their head) which lead to improved productivity.  I’ve seen them go in for expansion …. and then you get a whole swag of updated high-tech machinery.  What I haven’t seen much of is the systematic upgrading of gear prior to the old stuff having to be trashed.

A functioning financial system doesn’t tax retained earnings for the sole trader.  A functioning financial system has loanable funds, going at low interest, to wealth creation.  Not to all kinds of other nonsense like land inflation, derivatives, financial instruments and on and on.  Wealth creating loans are those which increase revenues or reduce costs by way of capital goods accumulation or update.  Or otherwise business renovation more generally.  We (in our nation of state supported usury) ponzi up loanable funds out of thin air only to divert these funds to all manner of wealth-destroying foolishness.  Wealth destroying in that they are diverted from wealth-creating undertakings.  Loans made for non-wealth creating undertakings are not merely neutral.  They take resources away from wealth creation and increase the interest rate on wealth creation.

Some people have this idea that you need market concentration to create new technology.  Perhaps this idea is inspired by the achievements of Bell Labs and the Xerox company.  They worry that a sole trader biased economy cannot create the new stuff.  But this is all nonsense.  Since producer goods companies, big or small, have to keep improving their gear to stay in business.  As a result the rate of technological change and update is imbedded in the rate of capital accumulation and update.

In a functioning setup sole traders as I said aren’t taxed on retained earnings.  And loanable funds go chiefly to producer goods accumulation, update, and otherwise business renovation.  It will take a very long road to get there.  But if there was one easy measure to simulate the end product it would be accelerated depreciation rates for producer goods update.  This would be even more effective then cutting the company tax rate.  Its buying the new gear that we would want as the only tax rort available for the big companies.

So supposing in the face of a lot of free enterprise sentiment we do the opposite of what a neoclassical would tell you? Suppose we increase the company tax rate.  And reversed the dividend franking credits.  Then went around like nazis plugging up any tax loopholes. Particularly for multi-nationals.  And then we left the big guys with one tax loophole only and that was via expensing all their new producer goods in the tax year of their choosing.

Why this would work much better than any consensus of Australian economists would expect is in its effect on how the funds were being spent.  Our big boys would basically be forced to stop being adventurous and making the financial papers.  They would be forced to retool all the time.  Profits would go into retooling.  Only by retooling would they avoid tax in this scenario.  It would have an effect on the banking industry too.  Its not so much that it would be a panacea, but it would club all these troglodytes into acting a bit closer to how they might act under universally good policy.

We have been through this high-tech revolution but we are not applying the new gear as well as we might.

Now lets take a look at Rothbards “Man Economy And State” on what he says about trade unions forcing wages up:

“A more sophisticated variant of this thesis was advanced by Ricardo and has been revived by Hayek. This doctrine holds that union-induced higher wage rates encourage employers to substitute machinery for labor. This added machinery increases the capital per worker and raises the marginal productivity of labor, thereby paying for the higher wage rates.

The fallacy here is that only increased saving can make more capital available. Capital investment is limited by saving. Union wage increases do not increase the total supply of capital available. Therefore, there can be no general rise in labor productivity. Instead, the potential supply of capital is shifted (not increased) from other industries to those industries with higher wage rates. And it is shifted to industries where it would have been less profitable under nonunion conditions. The fact that an induced higher wage rate shifts capital to the industry does not indicate economic progress, but rather an attempt, never fully successful, to offset an economic retrogression—a higher cost in the manufacture of the product. Hence, the shift is “uneconomic.”

A related thesis is that higher wage rates will spur employers to invent new technological methods to make labor more efficient. Here again, however, the supply of capital goods is limited by the savings available, and there is almost always a sheaf of technological opportunities awaiting more capital anyway.

Furthermore, the spur of competition and the desire of the producer to keep and increase his custom is enough of an incentive to increase productivity in his firm, without the added burden of unionism.70 Monopoly and Competition 719 70On the Ricardo effect, see Mises, Human Action, pp.”

Rothbard may well be right in terms of his perfectly balanced Misean economy.  But if he’s talking about the real world he is NOT right.   Its true that savings (delayed consumption) can produce the resources that could be used for capital accumulation and update.  But in our ponzi setup even if people did save a lot the funds would be diverted to rubbish.  Strong unions coupled with accelerated depreciation schedules would bludgeon those funds into capital accumulation and update.  I am saying this completely independent of any belief in whether we ought to encourage strong unions in the very long run.  I’m just telling you what would happen.

Rothbard claims that there are enough incentives to get the sort of investment we are talking about. Again … under his perfectly balanced Misean setup that probably is right.   Under our poxy setup to get things right you almost have to club, impel, bully and force CEO’s and bankers into submission on this score.

The Austrians like tax loopholes.  Mises said that tax loopholes were the holes in the box through which capitalism breathes.  But these excellent theorists were living in a world of much worse taxation dysfunction and much better banking practices.  So they have to be judged wrong under current conditions.  Banker dysfunction is so bad, we ought to close almost every loophole we can think of for the big guys …. save except for accelerated depreciation as their last remaining rort.

It seems that I’ve gone against my word.  It seems that I am advocating this policy rather than merely pointing things out for didactic purposes.  My one strategic wedge issue is to push for no taxes on retained earnings for sole traders.  The bigshots can look after themselves.  They certainly haven’t been willing to do good things for the rest of us lately.

When Will The Singularity Happen?

The answer is never. These are very foolish ideas put about by people with a crude understanding of economics and the production process.
The stupidest idea in human history is the idea of cosmological inflation.  The next stupidest idea is the gravitational singularity.  The technological singularity is a very stupid idea as well.   But the Jew Kurzweil cannot match his Jew colleagues in physics for sheer idiocy, try as he might.  Still one would have to give Kurzweil an honourable mention in any ranking of dopes.  He is like the jester (King Lears “Fool”) trying to match the King, out there in the thunder and the lightning.  In some ways one can see Kurzweil as being in a long line of dummies going back to Joachim of Fiore. 
For starters the focus is on those processes that lend themselves to exponential improvement. This is the wrong focus. Any chemist will tell you that the rate determining step is the SLOWEST part of the reaction. Not the fastest. Any project manager who uses critical path analysis knows he must speed up the LONGEST path of the overall project to reduce the completion time. Yet Kurzwell et al draw their analogy from Moores law where a tiny subset of productivity improvement has been very fast. But this improvement in information processing cost effectiveness has relied on a massively extended structure of production involving international trade.
What the focus should be on in overall productivity is inherent bottlenecks on the horizon. Not low-hanging fruit already with us.
The production of anything worthwhile involves tasks in series and tasks in parallel. The critical path takes the longest time and therefore shows where we must move resources to if we want to speed up the overall process.  Only by spending more resources on the LONGEST (analogous to slowest ………  analogous to the things we do least well) path can we speed up the process entire.  We don’t get much overall traction by thinking too hard about those things we are already improving at more or less automatically. 
Increases in productivity requires what the Austrian school calls “a lengthening of the structure of production” and not merely improvement in individual capital goods. There is an exception to this which I will get to later.

Incoming and despatch staff, as well as maintenance people, swarming over a 3D printer.  If a factory is either too large or too small it can become a choke point.


You could think of lengthening the structure of production as being akin to increasing the length of a conveyor. But manufacturing is an extension of logistics. And a factory either too large or small becomes a choke point. So the lengthening of the structure of  production, in practice, requires more factories and more transport between them. Under our current model of cargo transport involving big cities, roads and big trucks, we would run into production bottlenecks very quickly. Particularly as truck use depreciates the roads directly.
Intels Gordon Moore.  Credited with first articulating the so-called “Moores Law” wherein the cost-effectiveness of the computer processor doubled every 18 months or so.  Like demographic realities this law, very stable for many decades, would have allowed a great deal of foresight.  But then like the Jew Einstein idiotically extrapolating on Maxwells equations here comes another Jew to use a gentiles very good work, in order to leap-frog into a kind of ….. Joachim-of-Fiore delerium.
Think of the notion that we are going to increase productivity AND shorten the production structure with 3-D printing. This is a much more foolish notion than thinking that photocopiers would make printing presses obsolete. Other technology maybe, but not the photocopier. If you could speed the 3-D printer up to compete with mass production,  the room where these printers were held, would become choke points as people crowded around to provide resin and maintenance services.

Nanotechnology? Bridget Fondas assassin says “I never did mind about the little things.” Yet nanotechnology would seem to be critical to artificial intelligence coupled with machine productivity absent humans.  We simply aren’t going to make much traction diverting resources here, when the most low-maintenance form of nanotechnology comes from biology. 



How about nanotechnology? Amazing stuff but a big winner for productivity? No because the small stuff is always going to be high maintenance. Imagine trying to crank out faster production from a team of precision watch-makers and you will understand what I mean. Then even if those watch-makers are robots you will need more robots to do maintenance on them and all the way down the line. So we are never getting away from the reality that high productivity requires an extended production structure.
Kurweil must be the metal guru that T-Rex was talking about.  Since his view of nanotechnology and conscious intelligence doesn’t include the carbon atoms four bonds as the main part of the story. Above is the new Kurzweil invention.  The Metal GNU.  Turns vegetation into fertiliser with 5000 different types of internal nanotechnology machines.  But it needs a man in the field to fix it every 45 minutes since non-biological nano-technology is inherently high maintenance.
But there is one type of nanotechnology that has low maintenance costs and there is a name for that nanotechnology and that name is THE SEED. This brings me to the one area where we can get more productivity with a shorter production structure and we call this PERMACULTURE.
Video link to an animation with commentary to give you a tiny glimpse into the complexity of the biological cell.
One doesn’t have to be a believer to have an appropriate sense of absolute amazement and wonderment at the complexity of the biological cell ……. BUT IT HELPS!!!!!  We live in an unprecedented era; An era of stupid atheists.  The way out for the atheist is to recognise that evolution cannot possibly be a single planet affair within a universe that is only !@#$%^&*(() 13.8 billion years old.  Only Jews could foist that level of stupidity onto the rest of us. 
To increase productivity without the bottlenecks that stick out, we of course want durable producer goods accumulation and update.  But the current model of big cities, trucks and roads is limiting us. A better model would be smaller settlements, canals, hydrogen dirigibles, and ubiquitous permaculture. But this more functional setup is not something achievable by 2025.
While it may seem sensible to provide transport where the people already are the Boehm-Bawerk principle, taken to the extreme, suggests that if we want our descendants to be awesomely productive, we might provide the superb transport and let the people migrate there.  We need a slow yet cost-effective 1000 year canals and dirigibles program to overcome bottlenecks in advance.
Looking closer at the singularity movement there is more going on than a sudden convergence of economic illiterates. These guys also have what looks to be some occult heresies on the fly. They have this idea of  transhumanisnm. Here we have occult-inspired death-worship posing as a quest for everlasting life.
A Two-faced bait and switch.  What purports to be a scientifically plausible solution to the quest for eternal life is really just the same Jew death cult in disguise.
Its really these pseudo-religious considerations that explain the cluster of foolishness. Life extension is a good thing but it involves breaking the medical cartel, better nutrition, life extension techniques and bio hacking. But these guys idea of living forever involves a carbon atom free zone. They aspire to turn themselves into cyborgs and perhaps later download their immortal souls into some sort of version of the Internet. But machines require maintenance whereas the cell creates other cells. So who will maintain the grid in this fantasy? I would just wipe the software. Perhaps they expect machines to maintain other machines to maintain other machines to maintain this internet to house their immortal souls? Good luck with that with me around switching things on and off.
 My approach to dealing with the eternal soul of Kurzweil lurking within the internet.
But not using the carbon atom, that is to say BIOLOGY, would unnecessarily hobble the production process. The better approach is to keep our telomeres longer and to keep our consciousness intact with our biological bodies.
TA-65 Lengthens my telomeres but makes me need more sleep.  So I guess I’ll just bludge for the next few years.  If I get a pet bird it will be a bludgerigar. 
There is more to this foolishness and I look to the blinkered attitudes that the Big Bang myth and ideological Darwinism propagate. This idea that evolution is so time limited leads people to underestimate the complexity of the the cell and of biological life more generally.
There is a fantasy wherein self-replicating machines could land on an abandoned planet (eg Mars) multiply like rabbits and then go on to colonise a planet inhabited with intelligent conscious beings (eg. Earth).  But without the sort of complexity that is evident in the biological cell, these machines would be broken down and dormant well before they so much as got a crude metallurgy industry off the ground.  Actually they would be finished within a fortnight, even though open cut mining has happened in the distant past on Mars.  This reality is at the core of what the Kurzweill is about.  There is no sustainable intelligence without the four bonds of the carbon atom.  And even to get that far probably took many trillions of years and not this blink of an eyelid 13.8 billion year idiocy. 
Its a bit like this Transformers fantasy of metallic machines taking over and reproducing themselves.  But this sort of carbon-free reproduction is never going to be a competitive model.
Whereas Kurzweil can be dismissed as the Metal Guru that T-Rex sung about,  what we have above is something less easy to set aside.  Above we have the HEAVY METAL GNU. 
Now some folks love that heavy metal music.  I’m not dissing them even in the slightest. I like that stuff from time to time just as much as any kid.  Not ALL THE TIME, just from time to time.
But I want full spectrum superiority in manufacturing power for Australia.  So I follow Johnny Cash when he says “Heavy Metal Don’t Mean Rock And Roll To Me!!!!!!”